> Isn't this what has essentially happened in this case?
I did not see a statement from the IETF asking for changes
nor did I see a statement from the Trust saying that there
are these issues that need to be fixed for legal or cosmetic
maybe there were such statements and I missed them
what I did see was a bunch of changes without anything
that said specifically what problem each change was
trying to solve (not a "justification" for the change but a reason
that any change is needed at all)
we have been changing the IETF's IPR rules far too often
(and I'm in no small way responsible for many of the changes)
we should get out of that mode and only be making changes
where there is a speific need to do so.
Ietf mailing list